In Exile wrote...
The problem, of course, is that people will balk at $70 sticker prices, psychologically. That's also a problem for developers. It becomes hard for most consumers to justify a $100 purchase, in real terms (before an Aussie poster points out that they're already in this boat, I'll just acknowledge that they have it by far the worst).
I honestly think if more gamers took the rental route in games, it would solve the vast majority of industry problems. People who play as many games as I do, but buy them at full sticker are mad. Mad! I only turn around and buy the game if, after renting the game for a few weeks, realize I want to keep playing it far into the future (hence, lots of content or replayability). At that point, I wouldn't mind shelling out $70, $80 or even $100 for a game like that. Then I get to keep on moving in my rental queue (paying $13 a month and playing a dozen games a year means I spend roughly the cost of 2 AAA games - with no DLC - and still get to play a dozen of them throughout the year).
And, if a game's huge success is REQUIRED for it to make money, that is a terrible model. Dead Space 3 being required to sell over 2 million or so copies before the game has even gone Gold is ludicrous. For it to sell less means it is a failure. If every game was made like that, the gaming industry would close overnight.
But here is the thing (IMO): paying for story-based DLC for DA:O or Skyrim is doing exactly that. Whereas armour DLC is exactly meaningless fluff content that's only being kept alive by (IMO) a series of very unhealthy tendencies in the player-base.
No. But would you say that ME2 + Shadow Broker (say) is worth 65$? I do agree with you that Bioware's DLCs are overpriced re: the value we're getting for them, relative to the base game.
I don't think ME2 + Shadow Broker is worth $75 (you said $65, but given that ME2 debuted at $60 and the DLC cost near $15, I'm going to reflect that in the price). That's why (among other reasons) I didn't buy it (or any other DLC). I CERTAINLY don't think Zaaed, or Katsumi or Sebastian or Jahvik would be worth $10/$15, because companions (to me) are the least value item and the item most fans will be upset about missing. But, my preferences aren't important. I am, from a business point of view, not against DLC. I'm AGAINST Day One DLC. And I sympathize with gamers who hate DLC in any form.
Now... if, instead of buying Bioware's Day One DLC, I instead purchased a discount that would give me 50% off all future DLC THAT would be a different story. If Sebastian, Legacy and MotA all were 50% off, I would strongly desire to buy them... even if I wind up spending roughly the same amount anyway.
Why is this different? It takes consumer psychology into account.
If you say, as you release a game, that "we plan to release DLC. Pre-order/buy the collector's edition/sign up for a VIP program for $10 and you'll get a discount on that DLC!" it will invest people in the game. Sure, some people would say "pay $10 extra for no content? Do you think I'm crazy?" But fans invested in the series will buy it. Then, release your DLC content (that would have been Day One, such as Sebastian or Jahvik) three to four weeks after release. This is when most games take their first huge dips in sales. This will revitalize interest in the game, get reviews about the DLC to pop into the gaming news cycle, fans go back and will replay... its good for everyone.
At that point, you will have people who have paid $15 (10 for the discount, then $10 at 50% for what would have been the D1DLC content, netting $15). When the next DLC comes out, nearly everyone who got the discount will likely turn around and buy your DLC.
Imagine if every pre-order (a number in the millions for ME3) downloaded Leviathan, or Omega. It would dwarf Leviathan's already mammoth sales. What the publisher would lose in revenue it would more than make up in volume. And, let's not forget, they would already have the $10 people paid in for the discount AND the fact that some people who bought the discount won't bother themselves with every DLC purchase (meaning Bioware could pocket their money).
The player may wind up paying the exact same amount of money, but it won't have the huge amount of negative whiplash for EVERY piece of DLC that came out. Instead of viewing every DLC that comes out as more content that they should have already gotten for free, they will instead be excited, being able to use their discount even more and, of course, get more content for a game they love. Players wouldn't be sitting on the sidelines before release saying "Why should I care about this DLC? This doesn't tie into the main story/doesn't make sense/isn't something I'm interested in." They will be saying "I can't believe Bioware is releasing more DLC... this is awesome! I'm really getting my money out of this discount program!"
But this doesn't happen. Instead, with the current model, every stitch of downloadable content released is scurtinized and every Day One DLC is flamed. It results in consumers having hurt feelings, who are being forced to think cynically and who, perhaps most importantly, are actively boycotting DLC out of the general premise. I would be genuinely surprised if DA3 has Day One DLC, but if they do, I'm willing to bet the number of people who buy it will be STAGGERINGLY less than who bought From Ashes. And likely less even than who bought Sebastian's DLC.
Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 23 novembre 2012 - 02:20 .
Retour en haut
hours of gameplay for >$10 is a crappy deal in terms of video games (not so much in terms of general entertainment though). That won't stop me from buying it, but it DOES leave me disgruntled. 
) it seems like they are saying the most inflamatory, poorly worded and misguided sound bites imaginable. I want to assume its just people capturing them at their worst, but I have really yet to see an instance where they have come out and even said anything "ho hum" in their releases (let alone something positive that we'd actually be excited to hear). 
